> Scalable text support a la TextMeshPro (sdf-based rendering)
Agreed, this could be better.
> the in-editor console is horrible. it frequently tells me "output overflow, print less text!". wtf? also, it doesn't let me click on a line to jump to the code
Agreed.
> the built-in tile editor is very painful in my experience.
Agreed, but I hear it's better in 4.0
> the built-in text editor is _very_ basic
Actually, I disagree here. Fuzzy find, quick open, search in files, and autocomplete all work and are blazing fast. It is missing some things like a decent Vim mode, I'll admit. However, I tried both using vscode and the godot text editor, and I found that you saved so much time by not having to jump between IDE and Godot that it actually made up for a few of the more minor deficiencies.
> gdscript's heavy reliance on "magic" strings and lack of type-safety throughout
Agreed, but this improves in 4.0.
> unity's UI system sucks, but it's still more capable than Godot's especially for things
I honestly find Godot's workable enough. With Unity I would get into stupid issues because it was scaled 1000x larger than my game (who in their right mind thought this was a good idea?!?). Also, I remember Unity having 3 different modes for their UI, all of which were confusing and counter intuitive. Godot's UI is simple enough to hack.
Thanks for the detailed reply. I am super excited about 4.0, I eagerly read the alpha update blog posts when they appear in my RSS reader :D
I am probably most excited about the gdscript 2.0 features. As someone who currently maintains a fairly large codebase as a solo developer, I cannot imagine writing that in gdscript. I rely heavily on C#'s type safety and more "industrial strength" tooling — a strong standard library, huge ecosystem of tested open source C# modules (e.g. NuGet), great external IDE support (I use Rider), and a lot of language features like generics and interfaces.
Btw on the UI stuff... I definitely remember being very confused about that when I first got started. Now, I actually do see the benefits of having 3 separate modes — it "does the hard work for you" when you want to put UI in screen space vs world space. But yeah Unity's UI system isn't good... and, like seemingly everything else in Unity's, it's apparently deprecated yet it's proclaimed replacement (UI Toolkit) isn't production-ready. Sigh...
Agreed, this could be better.
> the in-editor console is horrible. it frequently tells me "output overflow, print less text!". wtf? also, it doesn't let me click on a line to jump to the code
Agreed.
> the built-in tile editor is very painful in my experience.
Agreed, but I hear it's better in 4.0
> the built-in text editor is _very_ basic
Actually, I disagree here. Fuzzy find, quick open, search in files, and autocomplete all work and are blazing fast. It is missing some things like a decent Vim mode, I'll admit. However, I tried both using vscode and the godot text editor, and I found that you saved so much time by not having to jump between IDE and Godot that it actually made up for a few of the more minor deficiencies.
> gdscript's heavy reliance on "magic" strings and lack of type-safety throughout
Agreed, but this improves in 4.0.
> unity's UI system sucks, but it's still more capable than Godot's especially for things
I honestly find Godot's workable enough. With Unity I would get into stupid issues because it was scaled 1000x larger than my game (who in their right mind thought this was a good idea?!?). Also, I remember Unity having 3 different modes for their UI, all of which were confusing and counter intuitive. Godot's UI is simple enough to hack.